OK, I see you have refrained from laying blame on any particular group. Nor have you provided any source of these explosives. So, your hypothesis is really weak at best. Along with this, I would be interested to hear who you think is capable of this huge conspiracy.
My research does not deal with "who did this who did that". My research covers the issues regarding the nature of the tower's collapse, and the
omissions and inadequate scientific explanations provided by NIST. You want me to point to someone - you want me to blame someone: That is not the focus of this argument. The focus of this argument is whether or not the towers fell by fire or by explosives.
Apparently, you think differently -> " Eithor there is some big Government coverup and conspiracy to kill these people or there isn't. Sounds to me that this is exactly what he's implying. And if so, screw him. If not, I'll gladly apologize." Your quote from post http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=1078700&postcount=13
Again, blaming someone is not the point of this argument. The point of this argument is whether or not the towers fell by fire or by explosives.
Please look at the image below.
Do you agree that in this image, the building has buckled at a single point that has failed and thus cannot support the above structure? And that the structure below appears to be fully intact. That the only point of failure is in fact at the very location of where the plane impacted the building.
First, a response from NIST: "NIST 9-11 report “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12) http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm
NIST didn't research into why this occurred. Why not? Every bit of evidence is important (remember the rules of the scientific method). Again, why didn't NIST analyze this very important issue?
If the building fell like that and the floors below that were intact and not on fire, then the building would not fall straight down, but preserve the law of conservation of angular momentum and continued to topple forwards, not straight down. If explosives were not involved only a partial building collapse would have occurred.
Another issue is the dust from the picture. There has been no recorded steel structure collapsing known to crumble to dust just by fire damage - either before or after 911 at any time in history. The Madrid fires inflamed the building but the steel structure stood.
The implications of this are many. And for your hypothesis to hold, then these things are true.
1. Explosives were all positioned around the floors in which the plane impacted.
2. The location of the impact and the plane had to be pre-arranged by the pilot and the people who positioned the explosives.
3. The pilot had to hit this location quite accurately in order for the ruse to look real.
4. Whatever triggering method was used to detonate these explosives would have to have been able to withstand the impact of the airliner.
Do you agree with this?
Answer to questions:
1. My hypothesis is explosives would follow a controlled demolition process from top down.
2. This is speculation on the pre-planning stage.
3. Again, speculation on the pre-planning stage.
4. You touched on an important issue which is related to your previous 2 questions. Again, it is a pre-planning issue but I will answer your question below
There are two theories I see you are trying your best to point out here:
A. "There is not way that this could have been planned because it is impossible for an individual to fly exactly into a pre-destined spot as to not set off the explosives that were 'already' placed in the towers"
B. "But if this was planned, and they have explosives, then they would have to understand the position and the area that the planes flew into the towers"
Here is an alternate theory which I will touch on:
C. "They planned to impact the structure at that general area. A significant part of the building was not touched by the airplane (the back side of the WTC), and could still contain wirings to the explosives behind the damage. They calculated that structural damage to that side would assist in the collapse so there was no need to place explosives there." Remote controlled? Speculation. Not a commercial airline? Speculation again.
Continued on this theory:
Only an approximately 1/4 damage of the building horizontal structure was done to WTC 2, thus allowing the very high possibility of the safety of the wires to be placed on the back side * un-impacted * side of the building.
Let me ask you something:
If steel cannot even melt at 1500c, then how can steel turn to dust without fire damage (the approximately 100 floors below).
NIST's official report was that the steel had only reached 650 C, barely 1500, AND NIST's offical faq sheet stated, and I quote:
"In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit)."
To summarize, the picture you have provided brings great question to the
- The law of conservation of angular momentum in the way that it fell straight down and not outwards
- The "steel to dust" anomaly, in which it takes steel up to 1500 degrees to even melt, yet the building pulverized to dust
- NIST reports that contradicts themselves by proclaiming "WTC collapsed due to fires" yet at the same time stating "it takes up to 1500 to collapse and in no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires."
I stand by my theory of the use of explosives unless you provide more references otherwise.